Discussion Topic

I was just about to add this comment to the thread and poof, gone like Tower 7.

"I think what's most important is the assiduous avoidance of critical review, informed discussion or civil discourse on this or any other subject here on Supertopo.
The mere suggestion of such behaviour should be immediately met with withering ridicule, character assassination and indignant dismissal."

It's comforting to see the OP come to an understanding that we'll have no such truck as 911 conspiracy theories on this forum.

Anybody with a construction background knows that of wood, steel, and concrete buildings... steel burns the hottest. I did find "loose change" very entertaining, though. Alot of conspiracy theories are entertaining. :)

Actually, my conspiracy theory goes beyond Bush & Cheney, who only hold power for 4 or 8 years. The ones who do this type of stuff don't loose power at the whim of some silly general election. But that's another story.

What I'm asking for is a test of the debris, that's all. Unofficially, the debris has been shown to have evidence of explosives.

For WTC7, office fires (the official cause of the collapse) does not do it. The computer models that 'proved' that small fires could have brought down the building had to be tweaked many times before they got the result required. And still, the models are sealed so no body can refute there findings.

And Dr. F., there are many, many other extreme coincidences that occurred that day, the chances of which point to an extremely improbable result of three towers falling, and the Pentagon damage.

We've gone over this a bunch, no need to go circular here. The video on the first page of this thread, as well as the statements made by the authors of the 9-11 Commission Report should be enough to make you wonder--why the cover up??

I'm not saying anything is conclusive, but it's worth discussing. Much more important IMHO than any of the political topics you guys discuss all the time. It's pretty close minded to just shut down an argument without even talking about it.....

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

My question is why folks are determined to believe the 9/11 Commission Report when the authors themselves claim it was pure bunk.

In addition to the evidence that there was explosives in the building that were pre-planted, there is also a bit of evidence that jet airplanes hit the buildings at high speed and their fuel ignited.

I am more inclined to think that people involved made mistakes and were greedy or stupid than I am to think that they were amazingly clever. So clever that they pulled off the most amazing logistical planning since the fake moon landings but were too stupid to know that explosives residue and molten steel would be found?

The nuts are giving way too much credit, and way too little at the same time, to the people who would have planned the whole thing (who are not the terrorists).

+1000 Mchale's. I was just going to say, this guy has almost 1800 engineer/architects duped so far! He must be pretty darn convincing!! That article you posted cites the official report lots so its pretty obvious where the bias is on that one... Why didn't they do a real investigation instead of hauling all the evidence away before anyone got the chance??

With your abundant construction knowledge, what made the steel in the WTC buildings "burn?"

Even if melted metal at the WTC didn't have an explanation... assuming the President had the buildings blown up because you've seen videos of melted metal would be as logical as assuming I have abundant construction knowledge. It's just entertaining and extraordinarily whimsical conjecture.

As for the President imploding the buildings as a logical conclusion based on some melted metal videos... have you ever been to or setup a building implosion? There's no melted metal there. Of course, all the utilties are turned off, all the combustibles are removed from the building, and there is no jet fuel.

What impresses the hell out of me is how those devious conspirators were able to figure out exactly where those planes were going to hit the buildings so that they could pre-place the charges in a way so that the charges would resist the fire for the better part of an hour before detonating and collapsing the buildings.

Absolutely brilliant!
Those conspirators must have been evil geniuses (or is that genii ?)!

I can see an argument for that. The explosion of material below the fulcrum point in the photo above, does seem quite odd. Even with the amount off mass comming straight down, the projection of material seems rather uniform, and impressive.

Also, it looks like the building should have kept leaning over, rather than comming straight down. Something stopped the momentum of the upper floors from continuing on their path.

Cheif you can start your own stupid truther thread or add to the 500 we already have...

BTW, Chief, Thanks for creating yet another dumbass 911 thread.

Short on observation and quick to react.
My post was not about 911 or whether there was or wasn't a conspiracy but rather, my observation that critical thinking, informed debate, different points of view and most importantly, (as evidenced by the quoted comments), civil discourse will not be tolerated here.

i worked with richard gage, founder of ae911truth, for about a year. we co-authored a technical treatment of WTC evidence, published about three years ago by global outlook, a canadian activist magazine.

we go 'round and 'round on ST every time someone raises this issue. i'd like to know who the hell that "wyoming" guy is who posted this thread originally, then zapped it. i think most of us ST regulars know how each other stands on this. dr. F is what you call a LIHOP. lotsa people stick by the government story, but it seems we have a healthy number here who at least have come to question things.

i don't like to tangle with this subject any more unless the discussion gets halfway serious. i can tell you that gage generally convinces most of his audiences--to the tune of about 90 percent--if he can get you to listen to him for an hour. little picky back-and-forth about this aspect and that isn't a serious discussion. 9/11 evidence is quite extensive, and just when you think you can melt steel in your backyard with a propane torch, someone will come along and talk about extensive thermite in WTC dust. the many technical, forensic aspects have to be taken as a whole. if you have the brains to serve on a jury, you ought to be able to wade through it.

one thing for sure is not going to happen. the government won't do anything except stonewall this. fyi, there were no plans originally for a 9/11 commission. it was called very reluctantly in response to a number of 9/11 widows from new jersey, who were lobbying for it. what they got for their trouble was a nonsensical commission, managed by a bush toady, with keene and hamilton as frontmen, who have since called their own work a miserable failure. want to go around with all that again? don't make me laugh. calling for a "new investigation with subpoena power", which seems to be a common mantra, is a lot like calling for world peace.

i like to note two important omissions by the first 9/11 commission. building 7 not even mentioned. can you imagine? and then there was norman mineta's testimony, recorded but not reported. mineta, a cabinet-level official present in the white house bunker, apparently witnessed dick cheney ordering a stand-down of the pentagon's defenses during the many minutes of lead time before the alleged crash.

hey, i don't blame anyone for not wanting to believe any of this. it really does disturb most livable notions about the world we have to live in.

haha, granite--mag wheels. magnesium. remember magnesium ribbon? or did you doctor that photo up with white metal from your model airplanes?

The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." In practice, the application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Alan Sabrosky, a former U.S. Army War College instructor, and Andreas Buhling, a German Intel expert, both say that MOSSAS, Israel's foreign Intelligence Service, masterminded the 9/11 attacks to insure that the U.S. will be their permanent ally in the Middle East. The evidence they present is as follows:

(1) A decorated soldier of the 1976 Yom Kipur War, living on the East Coast, went to a park to collect cuttings, and overheard a conversation in Hebrew, with words to the effect: "The Twin Towers are coming down. The Arabs are so stupid, they don't know we are using them."

(2) A group of men were seen by multiple witnesses taking videos of the collapsing Twin Towers, in a very celebratory fashion, High-fiving each other for a job well done. They were picked up and questioned by the FBI and held for sometime, before Israel secured their release.

(3) These men worked for Urban Moving Systems, a MOSSAD front company staffed almost entirely by Israeli Nationals. After the 9/11 attacks, a lone American employee of the Company reported that they were all celebrating the attacks.

(4) The FBI arrested around 70 Israelis who "Seemed somehow connected to the attacks. No such support staff of Muslims was ever found

(5) Many Intel officials think that Bin Laden's original statement that he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks to be true, with the later "confession video" a fake.

(6) Six of the supposed hijackers are still alive, having been victims of identity theft. Many Intel people say that this could have been carried out in multiple countries only by an Intel service backed by a soverign state.

(7) MOSSAD agents stayed in an Apt. in FL opposite the hijackers; evidence suggests that they were under the impression that the planes would be flown to another country.

(8) The hijackers were not devout Muslims, as they spent time before 9/11 at the Strip in Las Vegas. The Koran on the front seat of a van is so obviously a plant,done for political effect by those who wanted the attacks associated with Islam.

There is more evidence still, but don't want to ramble on.

All the inside conspiracy theories suit MOSSAD well as they confuse people and obscure the truth.
(5)

1500 engineers, men/women some with Phd.s, educated, not political... all saying the same thing; the official version of what happened that day can not be true. I appreciate this video as they do not come up with their own theories.

Also appreciate the psychologist at the end explaining why Americans are unable to accept this factual information.

I'd like to ask that if people are going to post large images, particularly unrelated to the discussion, that they resize them so they don't hose the text on the page, forcing us to scroll back and forth to read what people are writing

To take the time to merely disrupt what other people are discussing is presumptuous and obnoxious. Personally, that's the sort of thing I'd ban somebody for, rather than the stuff fatty got canned for. Just go somewhere else if you don't like it

I'd like to ask that if people are going to post large images, particularly unrelated to the discussion, that they resize them so they don't hose the text on the page, forcing us to scroll back and forth to read what people are writing

To take the time to merely disrupt what other people are discussing is presumptuous and obnoxious. Personally, that's the sort of thing I'd ban somebody for, rather than the stuff fatty got canned for. Just go somewhere else if you don't like it

Peace

Karl

I'm not going to resize Reilly's photo and it doesn't cause any scrolling unless you're reading this on your phone.

Nobody has posted an obnoxiously large image to disrupt the flow of text yet although that would have been easy to do if that anyone intended.

Chief is upset that 9-11 conspiracy theories are met with "withering ridicule, character assassination and indignant dismissal."
I have not posted any "withering ridicule, character assassination and indignant dismissal" in response to 9-11 conspiracy theories. At least not in this threat, and at least not yet.
I am choosing to take the "high road" and give the conspiracy theorists the respect they deserve,

Graniteclimber,

I'm not upset.
My tongue in cheek comments were about the way some of us react to statements or opinions we don't agree with here on Supertopo and in particular, that we seem to be prone to drifting far from what would pass for informed discussion or civil discourse.
My comments weren't directed at you or anyone in particular and if I've given unreasonable offense, I apologize.
I reviewed your comments and struggle to see pictures of hamsters and lovely naked gals as "the high road" with respect to this topic.
The picture of Yosemite Falls is edifyingly off topic though.

Monolith. I can't find it. Everything I can find says those are the only two videos.

Did you watch the second one I posted? If you look at the damage that the second plane that hit the towers caused, vs the damages to the pentagon, how can you even think that a plane hit it??

Your whole premise is that the planes caused so much damage to the wtc buildings that they failed, even though they were designed to withstand said impact. Then another plane somehow miraculously hits the pentagon and it only made a hole, no major fire damage....

That's just a 5 frame edit.. Who knows what's been done to it, but it looks more like a f16 or fighter jet than an airliner. Those toll booths are pretty close to the pentagon too, so an airliner wouldn't be that small...

It is disrespectful of you to dismiss the hamster conspiracy theory so offhandedly. You should give the hamster conspiracy theory the respect it deserves. It is just as valid as the other conspiracy theories.

The gals were for Locker and to not have anything to do with the 9-11 attack, but I'm glad you enjoyed them.

The conspiracy theorists don't have any compelling facts, only questions, and the idea that the Bush administration was competent enough to do what they are supposed to have done and not have any leaks makes about as much sense as the hamster theory.

Be impeccable with your word - Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

Don’t take anything personally - Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

Don’t make assumptions - Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

Always do your best - Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.

what all these niceties assiduously avoid is probably the most damning evidence of all, that of time. the trade towers fell in less than 15 seconds, building 7 in less than 10. it's called near free fall speed, and the only way that can happen is with an instantaneous liquidation of a building's skeleton, as is done in controlled demolition. any other scenario involves more time, really, a heckuva lot more.

How could the buildings fall so quickly? It’s been explained very well in the technical literature by Northwestern’s Zdenek Bazant, PhD, and others (see, for example, Bazant 2008). I’ve developed a simpler physics model of the progressive collapses that agrees quite well with the main points of Bazant’s more rigorous results (Thomas 2010b). Here are some of my findings:

Each floor of the towers contained over two million kilograms of mass. The gravitational potential energy of a standing tower with twelve-foot floors extending upward 110 stories can be calculated straightforwardly; it comes to over 420 billion joules of energy, or the equivalent of 100 tons of TNT per tower. This energy, which was released completely during the collapses, is more than the energy of some of the smaller nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal, such as the W-48 (72 tons TNT) (Sublette 2006). This is where the energy required to break columns, pulverize concrete, and expel debris through windows came from. (Truthers often compare such expulsions of air and debris, visible several floors below the collapse fronts, to “squibs,” explosive devices often used in demolitions. However, they are readily explained by pressure changes as the towers, acting like a gigantic bicycle pump being compressed, collapsed.)

The Twin Towers used a “tube within a tube” architectural design, which provided considerable open office space in the interiors of the Towers. Much of the structural support was provided by a dense grouping of thick central core columns in the interior and the perimeter walls on the outside. When the towers began to collapse, large parts of the inner cores (called “the Spires” in 9/11 Truth circles) were actually left standing, briefly, before they, too, toppled over. The perimeter walls were largely forced to peel outward in large sections, producing the iconic images of Ground Zero with which we’re all familiar. Between the outer perimeter and the inner core, the weight of the upper sections plowed through one floor after another, breaking the floor connection brackets and support columns, pulverizing concrete decks, and gaining momentum and mass with each additional floor failure. Had the buildings been constructed differently (the Port Authority was allowed to circumvent some existing New York buildings requirements for the Towers), the collapses might not have even happened (Young 2007).

Even the 9/11 Truth movement’s most eminent physicists are confused about the basic principle of the difference between static and dynamic forces. A piece of paper, taped across a jar’s opening, will support a heavy coin such as a quarter indefinitely (static load). However, if the coin is dropped from just a few inches up, it will tear right through the paper (dynamic load). Given the information at hand—for example, the mass of the upper section of the north tower (fifty-eight million kilograms), the distance it fell (3.8 meters, about twelve feet), and the stiffness/rigidity of the lower structure itself, the dynamic force imparted on the lower section can be estimated as some thirty times the upper portion’s weight. This is many times the lower structure’s safety margin, which explains why it was quickly overwhelmed.

Once progressive collapse began, there were decreasing time intervals of free fall (between floors), punctuated by very brief, incredibly violent collisions—decelerations—of the upper mass, for each floor in turn. There was resistance at every step of the collapse, as the upper section collided with and incorporated each floor below. Conservation of momentum shows that the reductions in falling speed were slight as each floor was impacted, going as the ratio of floors before to floors after (e.g. 14/15, or about 94 percent, for the first impact). Accordingly, the upper section fell from rest to about 19 mph, was slowed down to 18 mph by the first impact, continued to fall until a speed of 26 mph was reached, was then slowed down to 24 mph by another impact, and so on. While the first plunge lasted about nine-tenths of a second, the upper section took only four-tenths of a second to fall through the next floor, three-tenths of a second for the next one, and so on until the bottom floors, which were crushed at a rate of just seven-hundredths of a second each, at speeds of over 100 mph. Yes, there was resistance at every step, as many tons of structural steel was demolished; yet the entire process, like an avalanche, lasted only fifteen to twenty seconds, about 50 to 100 percent longer than true “free fall” would have lasted.

Hamsters are rodents belonging to the subfamily Cricetinae. The subfamily contains about 25 species, classified in six or seven genera.[1]
Hamsters are crepuscular animals which burrow underground in the daylight to avoid being caught by predators. Their diets include a variety of foods, including dried food, berries, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables. In the wild, they feed primarily on seeds, fruits and greens, and will occasionally eat burrowing insects.[2] They have an elongated pouch on each side of their heads that extends to their shoulders, which they stuff full of food to be stored, brought back to the colony or to be eaten later.
Hamster behavior varies depending on their environment, genetics, and interaction with people. Because they are easy to breed in captivity, hamsters are often used as laboratory animals in more economically developed countries. Hamsters have also become established as popular small house pets,[3] and are sometimes accepted even in areas where other rodents are disliked, and their typically solitary nature can reduce the risk of excessive litters developing in households.

Although the Syrian hamster or golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) was first described scientifically in 1839, researchers were not able to successfully breed and domesticate hamsters until 1939.[3] The entire laboratory and pet populations of Syrian hamsters appear to be descendants of a single brother-sister pairing. These littermates were captured and imported in 1930 from Aleppo [Syria] by Israel Aharoni, a zoologist of the University of Jerusalem.[4] In Jerusalem, the hamsters bred very successfully. Years later, animals of this original breeding colony were exported to the USA, where Syrian hamsters became one of the most popular pets and laboratory animals. Comparative studies of domestic and wild Syrian hamsters have shown reduced genetic variability in the domestic strain. However, the differences in behavioral, chronobiological, morphometrical, hematological and biochemical parameters are relatively small and fall into the expected range of interstrain variations in other laboratory animals.[5]
Early literature
In 1774, Friedrich Gabriel Sulzer, a companion of Johann-Wolfgang von Goethe, devoted a whole academic monography in the domain of social sciences and natural history to hamsters, entitled "An approach to a natural history of the hamster" ("Versuch einer Naturgeschichte des Hamsters"). In several instances, he used the hamster to document the equal rights of all beings, including Homo sapiens.[6]
Etymology

The name "hamster" is a loanword from the German, which itself derives from earlier Old High German hamustro. It is possibly related to Old Russian choměstrǔ, which is either a blend of the root of Russian khomiak "hamster" and a Baltic word (cf. Lithuanian staras "hamster")[7] or of Persian origin (cf. Av hamaēstar "oppressor").[8]
Description

Roborovski hamster
Hamsters are typically stout-bodied, with tails shorter than body length, and have small, furry ears, short, stocky legs, and wide feet. They have thick, silky fur, which can be long or short, colored black, grey, honey, white, brown, yellow, red, or a mix, depending on the species. Two species of hamster belonging to the genus Phodopus, Campbell's dwarf hamster (Phodopus campbelli) and the Djungarian hamster (Phodopus sungorus), and two of the genus Cricetulus, the Chinese striped hamster (Cricetulus barabensis) and the Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus) have a dark stripe down their heads to their tails. The species of genus Phodopus are the smallest, with bodies 5.5 to 10.5 cm (2.2 to 4.1 in) long; the largest is the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), measuring up to 34 cm (13.4 in) long, not including a short tail of up to 6 cm (2.4 in). The Angora hamster, also known as the long-haired or teddy bear hamster, which is a type of the golden hamster is the second-largest hamster breed, measuring up to 18 cm (7.1 in) long.[3]

Yawning white Syrian hamster showing large incisors
The hamster tail can be difficult to see, as it is usually not very long (about 1/6 the length of the body), with the exception of the Chinese dwarf hamster, which has a tail the same length as the body. One rodent characteristic that can be highly visible in hamsters is their sharp incisors; they have an upper pair and lower pair which grow continuously throughout life, so must be regularly worn down. Hamsters are very flexible, but their bones are somewhat fragile. They are extremely susceptible to rapid temperature changes and drafts, as well as extreme heat or cold.
Senses
Hamsters have poor eyesight; they are nearsighted and colorblind.[citation needed] To compensate for their poor sight when in unfamiliar territory, hamsters have scent glands on their flanks (and abdomens in Chinese and dwarf hamsters). A hamster rubs these areas of its body against various objects, and leaves a trail of smells to follow to return to its home den.[citation needed] Hamsters also use their sense of smell to identify pheromones and gender, and locate food. They are also particularly sensitive to high-pitched noises and can hear and communicate in the ultrasonic range.[4]
Diet
Hamsters are omnivores. Although they can survive on a diet of exclusively commercial hamster food, other items, such as vegetables, fruits, seeds, and nuts, can be given, but these should be removed before they become rotten. Hamsters in the Middle East have been known to hunt in packs to find insects for food.[9] Hamsters are hindgut fermenters and must eat their own feces (coprophagy) to recover nutrients digested in the hindgut, but not absorbed.[1]
Behavior

A behavioral characteristic of hamsters is food hoarding. They carry food in their spacious cheek pouches to their underground storage chambers. When full, the cheeks can make their heads double, or even triple in size.[1]
Social behavior

Hamsters fighting
Most hamsters are strictly solitary. If housed together, acute and chronic stress may occur,[5] and they may fight fiercely, sometimes fatally. Some dwarf hamster species may tolerate conspecifics. Russian hamsters form close, monogamous bonds with their mates, and if separated, they may become very depressed. This happens especially in males. Males will become inactive, eat more, and even show some behavioral changes similar to some types of depression in humans.[citation needed] This can even cause obesity in the hamster.
Chronobiology
Evidence conflicts as to whether hamsters are crepuscular or nocturnal. Khunen writes, "Hamsters are nocturnal rodents who [sic] are active during the night...",[5] but others have written that because hamsters live underground during most of the day, only leaving their burrows about an hour before sundown and then returning when it gets dark, their behavior is primarily crepuscular.[citation needed] Fritzsche indicated although some species have been observed to show more nocturnal activity than others, they are all primarily crepuscular.[4]
Wild Syrian hamsters are true hibernators and allow their body temperature to fall close to ambient temperature (but not below 20°C). This kind of thermoregulation diminishes the metabolic rate to about 5% and helps the animal to considerably reduce the need for food during the winter.[5] Hamsters may not hibernate per se, but instead reduce the rate of a number of physiological systems, such as breathing and heart rate, for short periods of time. These periods of torpor (defined as "a state of mental or physical inactivity or insensibility"[10]) can last up 10 days.[citation needed]
Burrowing behavior
All hamsters are excellent diggers, constructing burrows with one or more entrances, with galleries connected to chambers for nesting, food storage, and other activities.[1] They use their fore- and hindlegs, as well as their snouts and teeth, for digging. In the wild, the burrow buffers extreme ambient temperatures, offers relatively stable climatic conditions, and protects against predators. Syrian hamsters dig their burrows generally at a depth of 0.7 m.[11] A burrow includes a steep entrance pipe (4–5 cm in diameter), a nesting and a hoarding chamber and a blind-ending branch for urination. Laboratory hamsters have not lost their ability to dig burrows; in fact, they will do this with great vigor and skill if they are provided with the appropriate substrate.[5]
Wild hamsters will also appropriate tunnels made by other mammals; the Djungarian hamster, for instance, uses paths and burrows of the pika.

Why is no mention of hamsters made in the 9-11 Commission Report? Why were the attack sites never tested for hamster feces?

All hamsters are excellent diggers, constructing burrows with one or more entrances, with galleries connected to chambers for nesting, food storage, and other activities.[1] They use their fore- and hindlegs, as well as their snouts and teeth, for digging. In the wild, the burrow buffers extreme ambient temperatures, offers relatively stable climatic conditions, and protects against predators. Syrian hamsters dig their burrows generally at a depth of 0.7 m.[11] A burrow includes a steep entrance pipe (4–5 cm in diameter), a nesting and a hoarding chamber and a blind-ending branch for urination. Laboratory hamsters have not lost their ability to dig burrows; in fact, they will do this with great vigor and skill if they are provided with the appropriate substrate.[5]
Wild hamsters will also appropriate tunnels made by other mammals; the Djungarian hamster, for instance, uses paths and burrows of the pika.

This is a very valuable capability. Only hamsters could have placed the explosives without detection.

When it comes to god and religion, I'm agnostic, likewise when it comes to the 9-11 conspiracy vs the 9-11 commission version I'm not a fanatic nor completely invested in the latter narrative; the "facts" in McHale's link above are at odds with the "facts" in my link above, so we each have our fairy-tale, but I only accept mine as a more probable explanation, unlike many truthers who zealously believe they know the truth.

Since each side can cite contradictory "facts," the incompetence argument also leads me to accept the official version as more probable:

Claim Three:
“Tower 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed neatly into its own footprint.”

The enigma of WTC 7 is becoming increasingly popular in Truther circles. We’re told that it wasn’t hit by a plane and was subjected to just a few “small office fires.” Yet it collapsed anyway, late in the afternoon of September 11, “falling neatly into its own footprint at freefall acceleration, just like a normal controlled demolition.” In particular, Truthers point to a brief period of freefall (2.25 seconds) that was confirmed by NIST in its WTC 7 final report (Sunder 2008; NIST 2010) as proving that the building was purposely imploded. However, WTC 7, too, fails to prove 9/11 was an “inside job”:

What is often conveniently left out of the story are actual reports from NYFD firefighters at the scene, which describe huge, raging, unfought fires on many floors at once and visible deformations and creaking of the building prior to its collapse (Roberts 2008). Tower 7 was not hit by an airplane; however, it was struck by a 110-story flaming skyscraper, the North Tower. The fires raged for hours, and they eventually caused a critical column (#79) to fail because of thermal expansion; NIST determined that this column was crucial to the building and could even be considered a design flaw. Its failure would have collapsed the building even without the other structural damage from WTC 1’s collapse and the fires.

WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).

The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.

Not all 9-11 theories are plausible and some may even be disinformation spead to discredit the study.

The "incompetence" theory applies to the highjackers as well. Some unbelievable crack flying went into hitting the Pentagon and these guys all pulled off grabbing a plan with little weapons and 3 hit their targets.

See, all a few at very high levels would have had to do is know it was coming (or put the idea in their head) and help it happen, like ordering those war games that took fighters away from the area and put false blips on the radar screens. I don't know up or down on the demolition theories but follow the money, the highjackers visas, the war games, and such and you know we're being lied to.

I understand, and when I delve into some of the truther "facts" they do create a sense that the official version does not add up, but their "facts" from reputable sources are at odds with other "facts" from reputable sources that the truther debunkers put forward.

My sense of what is most probable isn't mathematical, it's a subjective assessment based on what I've read from both sides, but whichever narrative one accepts, I don't think he or she is a dupe or a sheeple; I just think one should usually avoid swallowing either the red or blue pill and becoming a zealous fanatic.

[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

—United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld

Certainty isn't truth. But what is likely true for anyone on either side of this, is that what today is for you a known known is actually an unknown unknown, and if you're lucky someday you'll recognize it as a known unknown.

Truthers don't believe all conspiracy theories; some must look at people espousing the belief that aliens left a massive ark on the moon as being real whack-jobs--and it must be irksome to have others treat you like that guy when you are so certain of what you "know".

And what irks me about most truthers is the tone, and often outright statements which say, "if you don't agree then you are blind, a sheeple, an idiot, a moron, in on the conspiracy, a dupe, a fool, naive, etc.," just because I can tolerate having a few more known unknowns than them.

Certainty isn't truth. But what is likely true for anyone on either side of this, is that what today is for you a known known is actually an unknown unknown, and if you're lucky someday you'll recognize it as a known unknown.

Truthers don't believe all conspiracy theories; some must look at people espousing the belief that aliens left a massive ark on the moon as being real whack-jobs--and it must be irksome to have others treat you like that guy when you are so certain of what you "know".

And what irks me about most truthers is the tone, and often outright statements which say, "if you don't agree then you are blind, a sheeple, an idiot, a moron, in on the conspiracy, a dupe, a fool, naive, etc.," just because I can tolerate having a few more known unknowns than them.

Are you into counter-intelligence? You just twisted the most bizarre pretzel I've seen since...WTF is your f*#king point?

You can not lay down your point in a more coherent fashion? You must be psy-ops or counter-intel. WTF? Or just f*#king crazy.....

Okay, though some nuance might be lost. Do your limitations require a simple sentence, or can I use a complex compound sentence? Can I use any words with more than 2 or 3 syllables?

On second thought, no, I will not dumb it down for you. I like my statement above just the way it is blue. Sure, I expressed a couple fairly simple ideas and sentiments in a fairly convoluted way, even though I do appreciate the elegance of keeping it simple and concise at times.

Why don't you just find some reading comprehension lessons on-line somewhere, and read it slowly a few times.

Hey, as#@&%e! My IQ is around 130 and I wasn't f*#king talking to you . . .

. . . Uh, I think you just demonstrated that you have the IQ of a 6th-grader....and I'm so hurt by that comment. Hamster?

I would think that a person with an IQ "around 130" might know that there is no such thing as a 6th grader IQ--or else my 138 in 4th grade would mean my IQ would be over 200 now : )

The conspiracy theorists don't have any compelling facts, only questions, and the idea that the Bush administration was competent enough to do what they are supposed to have done and not have any leaks makes about as much sense as the hamster theory.

1) The "conspiracy theorists" have many compelling facts. The Believers just don't want to believe them. Like independent tests that show traces of explosives in the Trade Towers dust.

2) Only the Believers claim the Truthers point to the Bush admin for all the mis-deeds. Point to one Truther statement that says it was Bush. It's a crock, nobody says Bush is responsible except those who care not to look at the facts.

I liked the video that Werner posted a while back, but then disappeared off the internet, it was pretty darn interesting. You know, the one that showed a missile hitting the pentagon, and then a dressed up cruise missile. Why did that thing disappear anyway??

Remember in Grade school, when kids joined in on picking on others just to fit in. Typically, is was always the not so bright type that rallied behind the insults, and teasing. It mad the kids feel good, and part of something.....Accepted.

Well, looks like a whole crew on Super Topo hasn't evolved much.

The truth is the whole thing is clearly and inside job, and part of something much bigger.

It's these bully types falling in line with the popular consensus, that perpetuate the lack of true knowledge, and understanding of what occured ad why on 9/11.

Ironically, looking back at history would hold up to a lot of what was warned prior. To bad the consensus is to fall in line and be accepted.

Does anybody actually know anyone (personally) that actually witnessed the planes crash into the buildings???

It's self evident that after the first plane crashed into the tower, the eyes of the city and lots of cameras, private and commercial, were pointed at the towers. It's totally implausible that a plane didn't hit the second tower

and theories about no plane hitting the towers are useless, and do much to discredit 9-11 truthers

• Many months prior to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack, a decorated former Israeli soldier in New Jersey overheard three men talking in Hebrew about the upcoming attacks. He heard several things:

o Two jets would crash into the Twin Towers

o The Arabs are “so stupid”! They don’t know how we are using them!

o “We have enough people in high places to insure the operation’s success.

o When it’s over, the Americans will know what we (Israelis) go through.

In other words, men speaking Hebrew, the native language of Israel were planning to take down the Twin Towers and blame it on Muslims, many months prior to the 9/11 attacks, in order to enlist America in their cause in the Middle East. This former soldier reported this suspicious and incrimination conversation to the authorities, but no action was taken.

Andreas von Bulow, a European intelligence expert, served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1969 to 1994, and wrote a book titled Im Namen des Staates (In the Name of the State) on the criminal activities of various secret services.

Von Bulow told the American Free Press (AFP) that he believes that the Israeli intelligence service, MOSSAD (Israel’s version of our CIA),, was largely responsible for the September 11 terror attacks against the Twin Towers in New York. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against Muslims. "You don't get the higher echelons," von Bulow said, referring to the "architectural structure" which plans such terror attacks. At this level, he said, the organization doing the planning, such as MOSSAD is primarily interested in affecting public opinion.

The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von Bulow calls "the working level," such as the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. "The working level is part of the deception," he said.

"Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation," von Bulow said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. "Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions," he said adding, "those who differ are labeled as crazy."

He is not the only European Intelligence expert to voice this opinion. In addition to European sources, our own F.B.I. says only two things. One, the evidence linking Israel to the 9/11 attacks “is classified”, and two, “they have insufficient evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime to put him on a wanted poster. “

There is much additional evidence that points to the following basic scenario: Israeli Intelligence either actually instigated or became aware of a plan by terrorists to hijack two planes. They then “took over” the operation, planted explosives in the Twin Towers, and planted the Koran in the white van near Logan Airport. This was an obvious and blatant political ploy to identify terrorism with the Muslim faith. It was very effective. .

Listed below is a summary of the points which support this claim:

• An Israeli surveillance team set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers, just prior to 9/11. Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness.

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center. Witnesses observing their behavior in Liberty State Park after the initial impact interpreted it as being celebratory. Later on, other witnesses saw them continuing to celebrate on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park”

remarked another witness.

When they were finally stopped. (They were arrested and held for several months) then released) they stated:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Why did he feel that Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD? No Palestinian suicide attacks have taken place in New York City, and none of the supposed 9/11 hijackers were traced to Palestine!

These men were later traced to Urban Moving System's, a New Jersey Company staffed primarily by Israelis. A few days after the attacks, Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He and his Israeli co-workers were in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities.

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11? Moreover, how did they know it would involve the collapse of the Twin Towers? These captured Israeli Mossad agents had training in electronic intercept, military intelligence and explosive ordinance.

• According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the US immigration service, the Israelis were organized into cells of four to six people. The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted "according to the FBI, Arab
terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells".

• . The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks.

• A number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked.

• A senior military officer stated that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.

• Gen. Hameed Gul, head of Inter Services Intelligence, the equivalent of a CIA-c#m-FBI combination of Pakistan, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, was interviewed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and repeated the accusation that Israeli agents were involved in the operation.Gul said that his friend bin Laden had sworn to him on the Koran that he was not involved. “From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel," Gul asked, how could Bin Laden mount such a sophisticated operation? "Let's be serious," he said with a smile. Asked why Israel would benefit, Gul replied, "Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics (and it) has now handed the (Bush administration) the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia."

• Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s, when he saw the televised images from September 11, he said it looked like a "Hollywood production." "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service," Ehmke said.

• MOSSAD agents rented the apartment next door to the some of the hijackers in FL>

• On October 10, 2001, CNN made a briefly mentioned a foiled terrorist bomb plot on the Parliament building in Mexico. They promised to bring any further developments of this story to their viewers, but the incident was never heard of again in the mainstream U.S. media outlets. But the story appeared in bold headlines on the front page of major Mexican newspapers and was also posted on the official website of the Mexican Justice Department.

Two terror suspects were captured in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies. They had in their possession a high powered gun, nine hand grenades, and C-4 plastic explosives (great stuff for demolishing buildings!) Within days, this blockbuster story not only disappeared from the Mexican press, but the suspects were quietly released. The two terrorists were Salvador Gerson Sunke and Sar ben Zui Sunke. Gerson is a Mexican of Jewish origin, and Zui is a colonel with the Israeli Intelligence Services. (MOSSAD). The story in El Diario de Mexico went on to reveal that the terrorists possessed forged Pakistani passports. Israel worked diligently to secure the release of these two suspects, who were then quietly deported. Many Mexicans expressed outrage at their prompt release, but to no avail.

Alan Sabrosky, a former U.S. Army War College Professor also believes that the evidence points to MOSSAD as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

All the silly conspiracy theories involving George Bush, Dick Cheney and CIA serve to obscure the real truth. This also is a tactic, take something close to the truth and discredit it.

Like independent tests that show traces of explosives in the Trade Towers dust.

This has been debunked:

Claim Two:

“Nano-thermite and military-grade explosives were found in dust from the towers. Tons of melted steel were found in tower debris.”

The thermite reaction is very hot, but it is also very slow compared to high explosives.Real controlled demolitions commonly use explosives to topple large buildings. However, the hallmarks of actual demolitions (the characteristic “boom-boom-boom-boom” sounds and the flashes of high explosives) were completely absent in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001. Many 9/11 Truth advocates, including architect Richard Gage, insist that high explosives must have been used to bring down the Twin Towers, as they say this is the only process that can possibly explain the “ejection of debris hundreds of feet from the towers.” However, they simultaneously insist that thermite or a derivative (thermate, nanothermite, etc.) was used instead, so as to topple the towers quietly. (This is but one of many instances in which 9/11 Truth claims flatly contradict each other.) Thermite itself fails as an explanation for the destruction of the Towers on many levels:

The thermite reaction, which takes place between iron oxide (rust) and powdered aluminum, is practical for welding train tracks in the field and for destroying engines of vehicles that must be left behind during combat operations. The self-sustaining reaction, once initiated with heat, produces significant volumes of molten iron, which can melt and cut iron structures beneath it. For thermite to melt through a normally vertical steel beam, however, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from simply dropping straight down uselessly. The thermite reaction is very hot, but it is also very slow compared to high explosives. Thermite is simply not practical for carrying out a controlled demolition, and there is no documentation of it ever having been used for that purpose.

Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failure—even in the optimum (horizontal) configuration, the layer of nanothermite produced lots of flame and smoke but no actual damage to the massive I-beam tested. However, Ventura’s TruTV Conspiracy Theory show slyly passed it off as a rousing success (Thomas 2010a).

Niels Harrit and Steven Jones, along with several coauthors, published the “peer-reviewed” paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit 2009). This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11. The paper examined “distinctive red/gray chips” found in WTC dust (unfortunately, with no chain of custody for the dust), and these were claimed to be thermitic because of their composition (iron oxides and pure aluminum) and other chemical properties. However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite, because iron oxide and aluminum are found in many common items that existed in the towers. Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006). Finally, the scan of the red side of the “thermitic material” of Harrit/Jones is a dead-on match to material Jones himself identified as “WTC Steel Primer Paint” in his Hard Evidence Down Under Tour in November of 2009 (“Sunstealer” 2011).

Harrit’s article describes the red portion of the chips as “unreacted thermitic material.” But while thermite may be slow, it does not stop its reaction once it has begun. Because thermite supplies its own oxygen (via iron oxides), it can even burn underwater. Suggesting that the samples show partially reacted thermite is preposterous. Claiming that thermite would explain molten pools of steel weeks and months after the attack is equally preposterous.

The article’s publication process was so politicized and bizarre that the editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal that featured Jones’s article, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned in protest (Hoffman 2009).

Thermitic demolition should have created copious pools of melted steel at Ground Zero, but nothing remotely like this was ever found. Truthers say iron microspheres found in the rubble indicate thermite; since hot fires and spot-welding do produce very tiny spheres of iron, though, these “microspheres” are not unexpected. Pictures of cranes holding red-hot materials in the rubble are said to show molten steel. Had this been the case, however, the crane rigs would have immediately seized up (Blanchard 2006). No reports of “molten steel” in the tower basements have ever been credibly verified (Roberts 2008). Some Truthers claim that a few pieces of sulfidized “eutectic” steel found in the towers proves thermate (thermite with sulfur) usage, but this occurred because sulfur, released from burned drywall, corroded the steel as it stewed in the pile for weeks (Roberts 2008).

Bldgs like #7 don't go down like like it did into such a neat package - the way it went down does not even require thermite evidence to show it was demolished. It's absurd to think otherwise.

I guess I have to post this one more time.

Claim Three:

“Tower 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed neatly into its own footprint.”

The enigma of WTC 7 is becoming increasingly popular in Truther circles. We’re told that it wasn’t hit by a plane and was subjected to just a few “small office fires.” Yet it collapsed anyway, late in the afternoon of September 11, “falling neatly into its own footprint at freefall acceleration, just like a normal controlled demolition.” In particular, Truthers point to a brief period of freefall (2.25 seconds) that was confirmed by NIST in its WTC 7 final report (Sunder 2008; NIST 2010) as proving that the building was purposely imploded. However, WTC 7, too, fails to prove 9/11 was an “inside job”:

What is often conveniently left out of the story are actual reports from NYFD firefighters at the scene, which describe huge, raging, unfought fires on many floors at once and visible deformations and creaking of the building prior to its collapse (Roberts 2008). Tower 7 was not hit by an airplane; however, it was struck by a 110-story flaming skyscraper, the North Tower. The fires raged for hours, and they eventually caused a critical column (#79) to fail because of thermal expansion; NIST determined that this column was crucial to the building and could even be considered a design flaw. Its failure would have collapsed the building even without the other structural damage from WTC 1’s collapse and the fires.

WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).

The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up.

LOL, the Grabbe paper. This is the paper that claims the top portion of the South Tower fell at >3g for about the first 100 feet. He's claiming the explosives some how sucked the top portion down. Wow!

Does anybody actually know anyone (personally) that actually witnessed the planes crash into the buildings???

Let me think....oh, My best friend saw them both hit. My ex GF saw the second one hit. My ex employee was almost killed himself by a man who jumped from from the towers rather than burn to death and I'm fairly sure at least one of my three friends who were working at Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of tower one may have witnessed a plane coming at them......... but I can't ask them because they are dead.

WHY would the government do it? I don’t mean Iraq , oil etc I mean why would they do it in this way ? just to help a pal with his insurance?

Why use a plane at all . Why crash your own airline industry and every other countries { Swissair etc}, damage your financial markets { just when you are going to need some war funds} destroy very very
valuable property, panic the WORLD, kill your own citizens etc. Could all this not be achieved by a ‘foiled’ plot. Terrorists were 15 minutes from the murder of thousands... a president would certainly come out better
having stopped an attack than permitted one. Or if you needed a big attack why not just the anthrax that came after. Everyone panicking over any white powder. Far far easier to plant Anthrax or similar in the towers or Disneyland, have a panic, then capture your suspects who blow themselves up or whatever you want.

If you were going to do this, would you do it this way?’ There are cheaper, better, easier and safer ways to get into a war.. Also why pick Osama as the fall guy if the target is Hussein. Why not just pick Saddam and ‘plant’ evidence to show it was him all along, thereby never needing to go to Afghanistan at all .After all if you can plan the attack why not the culprit.. no need to go scratching for evidence of a link to Iraq AFTER the attack , set it up before.

Funny how the authorities are both all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, and completely incompetent at the same time...

The good old Pearl Harbor theory always struck me the same way . Why destroy your fleet just as you are planning war. Discover the jap carriers 500 miles out while on manouevers’ and the impact on public opinion would be similar to a attack.

Why sink your whole fleet ? Especially if you could sink theirs .. take a few years off the war if they lost 6 carriers day 1 !!

From what I've learned from SeptemberClues, I can tell your hamster video is fake.

What September Clues says, and I hope I have this correct, is that All and ANY footage you have ever seen of the 911 event was created in a studio. They believe the buildings WERE demolished but that there were no people in them and that the area was evacuated. No planes ever hit the bldgs. All home video cameras were disabled with EMT. So that nobody could see the ACTUALL event a fog was created over the city. Even the 911 Memorial and victims are fake.

I would encourage people to check it out but it could cause brain damage or worse.

How do you know that something is real or now?

How do you know that you are real?

How do you know "you" are not just part of a sleeping hamster's dream?

Who said the government did it? Certainly not me, i don't recall anyone else asserting that either.

OR I meant no disrespect, in fact I was hoping that someone like you would come along. Did your ex-girlfriend actually describe a plane flying into the building or just an explosion? I am simply curious, and trying to wade through all the muck out there.

That's big shit! and guess what, people forgot all about that after 9-11. Not to mention that

Let's not forget that there were 10s of millions of dollars in Gold and Silver from the Bank of Nova Scotia that disappeared when the buildings went down. And Silverstein got something like 7 billion in an insurance settlement on the building that he only had 15 million invested it and which was going to require a 1 billion in Asbestos remediation.

Not to mention the extraordinary put options (bets the stock would go down) placed on the airlines and wall street firms that were housed in the towers.

besides that, the evidence for a number of serious wall street investigations were destroyed when the buildings fell. very convenient.

There's a lot more. The 9-11 commission specifically stated they didn't think where the financing for the 9-11 attacks came from was important. Total BS right? Particularly when a major Indian newspaper wrote that the head of the Pakistani ISI secret service had wired 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta and that same guy was meeting with George Tenet, on the day of 9-11

His speech says the Pentagon should be technologically improved for more efficiency. Hardly seems motivation to slam planes into towers and kill thousands of Americans and

risk getting caughtrisk getting caughtrisk getting caught.

Here's a few paragraphs:

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us.

Our business processes and regulations seems to be engineered to prevent any mistake, and by so doing, they discourage any risk. But ours is a nation born of ideas and raised on improbability, and risk aversion is not America's ethic, and more important, it must not be ours.

Those who fear danger do not volunteer to storm beaches and take hills, sail the seas, and conquer the skies. Now we must free you to take some of the same thoughtful, reasoned risks in the bureaucracy that the men and women in uniform do in battle.

To that end, we're announcing today a series of steps the Department of Defense will take to shift our focus and our resources from bureaucracy to battlefield, from tail to tooth.

Today's announcements are only the first of many. We will launch others ourselves, and we will ask Congress for legislative help as well. We have, for example, asked Congress for permission to begin the process of closing excess bases and consolidating the B-1 bomber force.

I am not an agent provocateur, nor collaborator, nor an operative, nor a ringleader.

I am out for myself. I am a mastermind. At the tender of age of 13 I (a genius) was hired by NASA to coordinate the fake moon landings. Why me? Because I am a genius, it’s that simple.

So who comes knocking on my door (not for the first time) in early 2001?

My old contacts. They come up with this idiotic scheme to help Bush’s popularity, the CIA’s goals and hegemony, not to mention the anti-Islam element.

I don’t know, I had retired to the Emerald Isle (I was paid well for the moon landing scenario and several other gigs as well).

But when they said I could help strike a blow for their agenda, which I really didn’t care about, my ears perked up. Actually they perked up when the sum €200m in pay (but no benefits) was mentioned, of course with all the hardware thrown in.

Mmm, I told them €300m. I hardballed them. They hemmed and they hawed.

Deal.

Being a climber as a one-man team, it was not that difficult to stash explosives on the buildings at strategic points. I disguised myself as window cleaner.

What pisses me off is that it took longer than I thought it would, yet I couldn’t charge overtime. Bummer.

I gave the operatives the remote control that would detonate the whole lot.

And I also felt betrayed, in the sense that it was suppose to be only ONE airplane, and nobody mentioned anything about the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

You think they would have kept me in the loop.

NB I don’t know, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some sort of shenanigans going on, I don’t trust politicians/governments, not that I am a libertarian or tea-partier or anarchist.

I often wonder if the Brits, and perhaps even some US officials, knew in advance of Pearl Harbor. And there are a couple of other questions that play on my mind regarding things past. However, by nature I am not a conspiratorist, at all.

When told about the atrocity, the look on Bush’s face (wasn’t he reading the book upside down to the students?), his look was one of being incredulous and truly shocked… either that or he is a better actor than I give him credit for.

When told about the atrocity, the look on Bush’s face (wasn’t he reading the book upside down to the students?), his look was one of being incredulous and truly shocked… either that or he is a better actor than I give him credit for.

Yeah, Bush just sat their and read that book to the kids cause he said he didn't want to scare a few dozen kids by leaving the room suddenly when the nation was attacked.

Then He lied when he said that he had seen the first plane hit the tower when, in fact, no such video had be broadcast by the time he claimed to have seen it

President Bush has stated on two occasions that he saw a plane hit World Trade Center 1:

Occasion 1:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

RealMedia video download of comment

Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]

"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..." [whitehouse.gov]

WMA download of comment

There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2.

11 a.m. on 9/11. One of the first broadcasts of Flight 11's impact into WTC 1.
WMV video download (831kB)

This Washington Times article states he didn't see the impact at the school...

The president entered a holding room at the school and picked up a secure telephone to speak with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at the White House. She was sitting in her office, watching live coverage of the stricken north tower as it belched black smoke into a cloudless sky. "There's one terrible pilot," Mr. Bush muttered. Turning to Mr. Card, he speculated that the pilot must have suffered a heart attack. Mr. Bush, who had yet to see the TV images, drafted a statement pledging federal assistance.
...and this is confirmed by Booker Elementary School Principal Gwen Rigell in this Propaganda Matrix posting:

I had the opportunity to talk with Principal Gwen Rigell of Booker Elementary school for about twenty minutes. ... I asked her if in fact the President had been watching the events of 9-11 unfold on TV before he went into that classroom and she told me "Absolutely not". There was no TV in the corridor or anywhere near that classroom.
Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error, especially since warnings had surfaced of hijacked commercial aircraft attacking symbols of American culture:

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals [in July 2001] that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture. [FromTheWilderness]
FBI information [...] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. [President Bush Intelligence Briefing 8/6/2001]

If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Center then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time, and he saw it before arriving at Booker Elementary because he was en route to the school when the first plane struck WTC 1 - a closed-circuit live feed to his limo is the only way he could have seen this impact on TV.

Each of us will ... remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. [G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001]
It must also be remembered that even after Andrew Card informed Bush of the second impact, by his own admission Bush knew America was being attacked, but he continued listening to the reading skills of a classroom full of children.

So you agree, the 'footprint' claim is bullsh#t. It flopped into the Verizon building and Fiterman hall, two different directions. Your demolition company would be sued out of business if that happened.

Why would the conspirators care to make WTC 7 fall only into it's footprint, when the towers obviously did not?

Why would they want to take the risk of getting caught making the extensive preparations to make a building fall safely with no collateral damage?

Let's face it, given the damage to WTC 7 (missing a corner) the building would have collapsed from a well placed explosive at the vulnerable spot (column 78) or fire. Given there was no sign of an explosion (windows would have blown out and the boom would be heard everywhere), fire is by far most likely to blame.

Who said the government did it? Certainly not me, i don't recall anyone else asserting that either.

OR I meant no disrespect, in fact I was hoping that someone like you would come along. Did your ex-girlfriend actually describe a plane flying into the building or just an explosion? I am simply curious, and trying to wade through all the muck out there.

She did, from the waterfront in Hoboken walking to the ferry terminal. She worked at the World Financial center across the street from WTC. It was my best friend who was closer. He was in his office in Soho/Tribeca and saw a very low flying jet zoom by. He looked out his SW facing corner window watching the jet thinking it was some sort of " promotional thing for an airline" He watched it fly right into the North Tower. Within seconds he was on the phone with my brother describing what he saw. Unreal. The second plane had thousands of eyewhitnesses. People were mezmorized and horrofied watching the NT burn and people jump as plane #2 hit. I was actually on vacation with a buddy in Jackson Hole. His wife worked in WTC one but was late for work that morning after taking their dog to the vet. Unfortunately we did not know about the vet appointment and sat for 5 hours in a condo in Jackson watching the news while my friend openly cried not knowing the fate of his wife. We finally recieved a phone call from friends saying the wife was not yet in the building and was ok. It sucked.

In the image above, taken before a section of the Pentagon above the primary entrance hole collapsed, one can see the left side of the hole, partially obscured by drifting smoke. One can also see unbroken widows on both floors.

Mono, you pic shows spools, still intact, where the wings of a jetliner supposedly crossed.

Where is the plane debris in your pic?? The columns left standing where the wings dissolved.

You only believe that's a plane crash site because that's what they said on the news. If somebody showed you this photo without anything connecting to any events, you would never believe a 575 crashed there. Simply not possible.

The impact zone."When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

Quote from Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career. Instructor, undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, emergency management. Staff physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 19 years.

OK, if you're gonna be reasonable here goes. The parking lot vid clearly
shows the plane hitting the building with at least 3' of ground clearance
so there wouldn't be any marks on the grass, especially from "engine thrust".
The outer 1/3 of a plane's wings are basically some sheets of very thin
aluminum over a few bits of structural steel and those bits aren't going to
have much effect on a massive masonry building like the Pentagon. As they
get sheared off they are going to be dragged into the main entry hole because
that's the way it works. There have been lots of studies on this and that
is just the way it is, mkay? The wings fold back easily enough but they're
still stuck on pretty well so they just go along for the rest of the ride.
It ain't rocket science.

ps
And for what it's worth the sicko who flew into the Pentagon was the best
of a bad bunch. I thank God that the other idiots didn't have a brain
between them or they would have slowed down and crashed into the lower parts
of the WTC and prevented anybody from escaping.

Back in the dark ages I worked on a fire crew up in central BC. We got called to a smoke one day that turned out to be a logging truck. The driver hadn't bothered to check his brakes at the top of a long hill. Fortunately for him, he saw some sign of what was going on, got the thing stopped and ran for it before the tanks went up.

We got there in time to see... Not a whole lot of anything. Surprised the hell out of me to discover that metal can be consumed pretty much totally if the fire is hot enough.

K-man, my last effort at being polite: the inner 2/3 of a wing has more
than a few bits of structural steel and the fuselage has quite a few. Add
'em up and you've got 120 TONS moving at a high rate of speed.
That's a damn big bullet that's gonna go through a whole lot of anything.
Don't forget the 8-10,000 gallons of fuel although that is included in MTOW (Max Takeoff Weight).

Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change its state of motion.

Get it, inertia says that things have a tendency to stay in motion, or stay still. It doesn't have squat to do with why wings going 500+MPH don't leave marks on buildings, m'kay?

Reilly, first you say the wings have no mass, they're just sheets of aluminum. Now you're saying they do have some structure, and hence mass.

Pick a story and stick with it, OK?

So, did the plane vaporize or not? If not, then where is it? If so, then how did it punch through all that concrete, and then disappear?

But honestly, don't bother answering. I don't believe everything people tell me. Especially someone who thinks that inertial explains why a building wouldn't show signs where the wings on a jetliner hit it.

I also don't believe the 9/11 Commission, considering they themselves tell us not to believe them. But you can go ahead and believe them, that is, of course, your choice.

Actually, it's my belief that if a plane hit the Pentagon, those spools would show some sign of the wreckage. Look, you don't see any plane remains in the photo. I guess the wings just got sucked into the hole where they later vaporized!

It's hard for me to believe that whatever 9-11 schemers there were, would need to use something other than an airplane to attack the pentagon, but I really don't know what happened, just that things do not add up.

But to contribute to this discussion on melting stuff, the Jet Fans in those planes are made of Titanium and designed to resist the hottest of fires, cause they are in the fire all the time. They are big parts in those engines

Wow graniteclimber, I don't believe the 9/11 Commission, even when they themselves admit they were lied to and their report is a sham. Thousands of people don't believe the lies that we've been told, and and we're told to shut up when we admit we don't swallow them.

And now you. You want to fly airplanes into my house and kill me because I question the official story of 9/11.

I think you should be banned for those words, suggesting bodily harm to me and ruination of my home.
You are a sad excuse for a person.

GC, that demo doesn't apply to the pentagon cuz it's not exactly the same.

Yes, it shows what happens when an airplane hits a heavily reinforced solid concrete block. It shows that aircraft can be shattered into unrecognizable pieces. The Pentagon is a honeycomb of walls that are strong reinforced concrete, but not nearly as strong a the concrete block in the video.

That video of the plane--it's a great demonstration that planes that hit concrete walls and disintgrate--they don't punch through the wall, they vaporize instead.

My God you're stupid. Not all walls are the same. You think the result would be he same if an airplane hit a 1 mm concrete wall, or a wall of a building or a solid steel reinforced block of concrete that was MADE to stop an airplane?

Kman, if you carefully compare the photo you posted with the one Monolith posted a few pages back, it's clear that the hole just right of the circle in your picture IS the wing damage. The main highest damage is in the collapsed portion of the building right of that

It's good you're in rescue work, Werner. It's something you are good at. I'd trust you to rig a rope I can jug up.

If you were an engineer and worked at a car or plane manufacturer, I don't think I'd want to ride any of those cars or planes. And if you designed a building I wouldn't want to go in it or walk past it. I'm afraid it would self-destruct even before the hamsters wired it with demo charges.

It's pretty unrealistic that the Cores would not maintain some visibility as the building went down via the pancake theory. You cannot have a pancake theory without resistance from the Core, and the Core could certainly not pancake.

It makes no sense that the collapsing floors pulled the Cores down since if the attachment was that strong, there would be no collapse. The floors supposedly sheared from the Cores. There is absolutely not way it all pancaked at once.

I had posts on this in the thread that got deleted. It's not a pancake theory--the WTC towers used a "tube within a tube" structure. The inner tube (inner core) was linked to the outer tube (perimeter walls). The theory is that these "unzipped" causing the towers to collapse much faster then they would if they pancaked.

The floors connected the inner tube (the core) with the outer tube (the perimeter frame)

What are you saying unzipped exactly?

It was in the NIST report. I don't think they used the word "unzip" but that's what they were describing. I had posts on it in the deleted thread that I spent time on and I don't have the time to redo them now.

But if you like this topic, you should read the NIST report. You don't have to agree with it but at least you will know what you are not agreeing with.

Sorry I linked the wrong image kman. I guess the issue is if that plane is drawn to scale and how much damage the light wingtips made. Wingspan is 125 feet. Count the windows in your image to compare distances

Personally, I think all this demolition and 757 didn't hit the pentagon evidence, true or not is a huge distraction from the real damning questions that come from following the money, able danger, the war games, Norman M's testimony, the identity of the hijackers and how they got their visas and that aspect of it

If the graphic that shows the drawn-in 757 is correct, then Houston, we have a problem.

But I agree--we can battle back and forth over the physical evidence. We can also ignore testimony from eye witnesses. We can also ignore the reports that 6-8 of the terrorist "fliers" were still alive after the events.

We can also ignore building don't just collapse they way the three Trade Center towers did, or that the damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with other airliner plane crashes.

Oh, there is just so much to ignore.

The real key is to follow the money, and to look at the reactions from the events.

W stonewalling any investigation, and a refusal to follow the money. The list of reactions, too, is so very long.

You mean 'zero' damage where the wing tips should have hit the walls. Look again, there is no sign of any impact where the wing tips should have hit.

As for eye witnesses, there were many who saw different things. But the ones who claim seeing other than an 575 are ignored. Also ignored are those from the other two sites (WTC & Flight 93 crash site).

Nope, never found. Check out the melting temperature of titanium as compared ton the burn temps jet fuel.

I discussed a picture and you made an obviously incorrect claim about that picture and instead of acknowledging that you start talking about something else.

This is so typical about these discussions. There are a million different conspiracy claims that very often contradicts each other. When one of their claims is disproved they just continue to the next claims and ignoring the first claim. After a while they get back to the old claims again and the circle continues.

What about trying to come up with a single coherent theory that is in agreement with the evidence? There are for example several witnesses that saw a low flying plane heading towards pentagon. There are no witnesses (that I know about) that saw a missile heading towards pentagon.

Philo, don't dig your hole any deeper. If you don't think that is the remains
of a 757 engine then you've been over at Locker's huffing more than your
fair share of his glue. But I suppose those charred and mangled engine
parts could have been planted.

Well I don't think it is a part of a 757 engine and Lockers Glue supply is safe from me. I do think it was a jet engine that was planted there by the guided plane that was flown into the Pentagon.
How do you truth deniers rationally explain that a hijacker who couldn't even adequately pilot a Cessnna was able to make a high speed 270 degree diving and banking turn and still level it out and not touch the grass. Can you present ONE professional pilot who would publicaly claim to be capable of that remarkable maneuver of aeronautic acrobatics.

And we will continue to see the deniers continue to attempt to diminish the significance of inquiry by the mature use of rodent analogies.

How do you truth deniers rationally explain that a hijacker who couldn't even adequately pilot a Cessnna was able to make a high speed 270 degree diving and banking turn and still level it out and not touch the grass. Can you present ONE professional pilot who would publicaly claim to be capable of that remarkable maneuver of aeronautic acrobatics.

Philo, I have a Commercial Pilot's license and I'm here to tell you that
once a large jet is off the ground it is arguably easier to fly than a
Cessna. You don't even need to touch the pedals. They are designed to be
incredibly stable. Landing one is a whole 'nother thing but those sickos
didn't sign on for that. Your use of the phrase "high speed 270 degree
diving and banking turn" just shows that you don't know what you're talking
about. Any turn necessarily involves banking - no big deal. High speed is relative.
It would have been a high speed turn for a Ford Pinto but not a B-757.
Lastly, it was most definitely not a "diving turn". It was not that
much more radical than many a 'circle-to-land' approach or other common
approaches to many airports around the world. The standard approach to
Hong Kong's old Kai Tak Airport was a much more radical maneuver performed
dozens of times daily by 747's. Admittedly those were not flown by sickos,
for the most part*. Oh, and by the way, ever see the Pentagon in person?
Yeah, Helen Keller could hit that puppy. How the phuk could you miss it?

*If you go to YouTube and watch the myriad examples of landing at Kai Tak
then you will see why I qualified my statement.

Those stupid hamsters can't fly. They don't even care about learning how to do a proper take-offs and landings. I told them they need to learn that learn that. They say that they can get a job that doesn't require that!

When flying the simulator, they like to crash their planes into buildings and laugh about it. They say they don't need to land!

Philo misses the point. The hamsters didn't fly the planes. Nobody did. The hamsters wired the WTC towers, WTC building 7 and the Pentagon for demo.

"There are no witnesses (that I know about) that saw a missile heading towards pentagon."

Who said "missile"?

Raymond, if you care to look, you will find many eye witnesses whose testimony you choose to ignore.

For example:

Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, has recently come forward and told American Free Press that he saw an aircraft that resembled a Global Hawk making a tight turn at high speed before leveling off near ground level and smashing into the Pentagon.

The Global Hawk is a jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicle that is used by the U.S. military but was still being tested in 2001.

Yet, the mainstream media has completely ignored eyewitness accounts like Danner's while it has actively promoted the official, but unproven, version that a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into the Pentagon.

Here's a link that has more complete information, in case you care to have something to discredit:

Look for that vid of the low hours private pilot who hit the pentagon 3 for 3 on a real 757 simulator.

Yeah and my youngest kid can successfully fly, dogfight and land a MIG on a gaming simulator. And he can rack up a prodigious amount of kills on HALO. I bet even you could summit Everest on a climbing simulation.
Not the same as real life. Take a moment and look at the telemetry of that flight before yoou so arrogantly say you could do it.

Guess what size engine a Global Hawk has?
If it looks like a plane and acts like a plane it must be a 757.

Philo, a few hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator would probably suffice
for hitting the Pentagon after the plane was established straight and
level. A phukking blind hamster could do it. It ain't rocket science!

Philo, the planes were at cruise altitude on autopilot, how much more
straight and level do you want? The only tough part was being able to
read the switch labeled 'Autopilot' to turn it off. If I recall that was
one of the specific things the sickos asked about when they forked over
their $$$$ for the real sim training.

Reilly what is the cruising altitude for a 757? And what is the altitude of the ground floor of the Pentagon? What happened between those two points? Or are you saying that a jet traveling at over 500 mph never got more than three feet off the ground and flew straight to the Pentagon?

I have no idea whether the Pentagon was hit by a 757, a missile, or a suicide squad of rabid hamsters.

But I can tell you, from personal experience, that taking a 757 down from cruising altitude and landing it right dead on target in the middle of a runway is not difficult, even for someone who has never piloted an airplane of any kind.

Again, I take no side in the battle among however many conspiracy theories are competing here, but I just want to point out that anyone who says it wouldn't be possible for people with little flight training to fly a 757 into the side of that building is wrong.

Raymond, if you care to look, you will find many eye witnesses whose testimony you choose to ignore.

I am finally convinced. He only waited 5 years to come forward!

Why should anyone believe him more than the other eyewitnesses that came forward right after the attack? You claimed that testimonies where ignored when they didn't even came forward for 5 years. Should people have read there minds?

Raymond, you obviously do not want to do any research on your own. There are many reports from eye witnesses who saw something very different from a 757 hit the Pentagon. I just showed one that was from someone from inside the Pentagon who knows how to identify planes. A very credible story that I knew you would choose to ignore (funny how I knew that before I even posted it).

I couldn't care less if you are convinced or not. It's your choice to believe what you want to. I'm just pointing out some facts--eye witnesses and other items, that show how the Official Story has many holes in it.

Please stop buying into the "pilots for truth" slander. They are racists who say that the Syrian hamsters are ignorant stupid muslim AyRabs who can't a paperplane through a window, and would never be able to fly a plane as well as white Christian racists like themselves.

Hamsters are smart, even if they are from Syria. Steve Jobs was Syrian too, and no one called him stupid. The hamsters received training from the finest American flight schools. They are smarter than you.

Philo, a few hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator would probably suffice for hitting the Pentagon after the plane was established straight and
level. A phukking blind hamster could do it. It ain't rocket science!

What the f*#k does Reilly know? You'd almost think he is a pilot! Goddamn truth denier kaluless sheeple.

Philo, I have a Commercial Pilot's license and I'm here to tell you that once a large jet is off the ground it is arguably easier to fly than a Cessna. You don't even need to touch the pedals. They are designed to be incredibly stable. Landing one is a whole 'nother thing but those sickos didn't sign on for that. Your use of the phrase "high speed 270 degree diving and banking turn" just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Any turn necessarily involves banking - no big deal. High speed is relative.

It would have been a high speed turn for a Ford Pinto but not a B-757.
Lastly, it was most definitely not a "diving turn". It was not that
much more radical than many a 'circle-to-land' approach or other common
approaches to many airports around the world. The standard approach to
Hong Kong's old Kai Tak Airport was a much more radical maneuver performed
dozens of times daily by 747's. Admittedly those were not flown by sickos,
for the most part*. Oh, and by the way, ever see the Pentagon in person?
Yeah, Helen Keller could hit that puppy. How the phuk could you miss it?

*If you go to YouTube and watch the myriad examples of landing at Kai Tak
then you will see why I qualified my statement.

I just showed one that was from someone from inside the Pentagon who knows how to identify planes. A very credible story that I knew you would choose to ignore (funny how I knew that before I even posted it).

The witness was not inside pentagon in any way. He was just passing by and by coincidence got the important job of collecting the evidence.

"An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned “and weaponized“ Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack."

A lot of the conspiracy theories seem to stem from people's need to feel safe. It's almost as if some people just can't believe such a simple plan can really work. As it MUST be something more nefarious and complex.

Not that I don't doubt our current federal government is full of evil and soulless mother-f'ers. Not the presidential puppet figure. The people who really run things rather.

But after reviewing 10 years of evidence, I just don't find anything compelling me to think other than some truly twisted evil men flying fully loaded and fueled jet airliners into various buildings. I'd love to be convinced otherwise and I've watched all of the footage I think...

The building 7 thing does seem a bit odd but it also doesn't make rational sense to think that someone rigged that building to blow without anyone knowing or saying a thing. Ever.

When I was younger I helped a family owned demo company with basic labor. I was just a mule carrying wire, tape, tools, concrete, etc. The amount of preparation and quantity of materials required to bring down a modern steel and concrete structure is VAST. And I never worked on anything close to the size of Building 7... At the time they used shaped charges to sever the main supports (I assume they still do...). Explosives were 5% of the work. The other 94% was careful prep. 1% was luck. We would would work for weeks prepping a building, selectively manually weakening members and gaining access to others. It is back-breaking and exacting work. The engineers would routinely discover that the "blueprints" were fantasy. The actual structure often varied quite a bit. There is simply no way that kind of work can happen quickly in a massive and inhabited building.

Yes it did but that wasn't the point. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights were a bothersome obstacle to even more trade and wealth.

Enfranchise everyone in order to create general prosperity ? That's downright socialist and unfair if you have privilege. Those people at our party ? Perish the thought... The USA gave up freedom in order to feel secure in the face of an enemy that didn't wear a sports team outfit (uniform). Globally and locally, it's all different now. Thanks for rolling over on the Patriot Act.

What did we all expect ? The bubble of free thinking from 1965 to 1980 had to end in the face of profit actually working. If you never made above $1,000,000.00 in a year, you weren't even number 3 on the invite list, and if invited, you'd better talk the talk with a wine glass held from the stem or you were silently busted.

All politics are local, especially if your locale is above the 30th floor.

This old event now, regardless of who and what, led to capitalizing on the maxim of,Never let a good crisis go unexploited...

the "CIT"--citizen's investigation team--is two young fellows from orange county who have traveled to DC many times, hunting down and interviewing eyewitnesses to what happened at the pentagon.

i hate to say it, but richard gage has refused to support these guys, in spite of the compelling evidence they've put together. i worked with gage for more than a year, and i found him to be rather controlling and also easily sidetracked, but he does what he does well, and he seems to be getting some increased attention recently, both on college campuses and on NPR. if there's interest, i could post the articles we wrote, but they're quite extensive, and i'd rather just refer people to global outlook, from which you can probably still buy a copy.

Tony, what I like about you is that you don't even pretend to understand science, so I can't blame you for "collaborating" with someone like Richard Gage. You're into folkore story-telling and he tells a good story, if you ignore the science.

CIT focused on one single aspect of the story, and they did it in spades. Their evidence is very damning, and real. Perhaps Gage sees it as a distraction to what he's put together.

While the biggest question is left unanswered, they prove a point. And that single anomaly, where the slip shows, is enough to expose the coverup. Lastly, the film makes the point, the implications are devastating. The big question is what happened to the plane, that's the unsolved mystery in this story.

I must have misunderstood you. I thought that you meant that the witness was credible because he worked in Pentagen. Now I understand that you thought that the witness was credible because you liked what he said.

If they had footage they would show it. Even the gas stations. You would at least think the 911 commission would have had priveledge.

You notice that the security camera footages from the gas stations and such haven't been released. There could be a number of reasons for this. One reason people suspect is that they show something other than a plane.

a second possibility is that they show a plane or show nothing. This focus on there not being a plan hitting the pentagon (and the controlled demolition of the towers) serves a wonderful function for the government that, as a minimum, allowed 9-11 to happen. It makes the "conspiracy" theory people look far out and fringe, and points everyone away from following the money, people and events like the war games and false blips on the radar screens from the war games. Nobody is talking much about the real damning stuff

Personally I don't know if the towers were brought down with explosives or not. I personally listened a guy who was an architect involved in designing the towers, (he said in collaborations with some japanese) He claimed they put in a demolition capability into the plans as it would be easier and cheaper that way and New York real Estate in that area where the option to tear down and rebuild was optimal.

I don't know what to think about that but note, since people don't think about it, that there was a previous bomb attack on the world trade center that people forget about since it's damage was so limited. Could have been an incentive, if the government was going to let the attack happen, (see project for a new american century's admitted need for such an attack and those guys were our government) that it be successful (and including the need to destroy evidence housed in the area regarding corrupt wall street firm investigations and the missing 2.3 trillion in the defense department

Well, they were pretty quick to confiscate surrounding footage from cameras.

Not to mention all the other cameras on the Pentagon. I can assure you there are more than 5 cameras on the parapet of the Pentagon pointing to it's perimeter. At least two of those would have said footage.

Now I understand that you thought that the witness was credible because you liked what he said.

Not true. I believe what he said because I thought he was being truthful about what he saw. And, in case you want to do some research, you'll find that others saw the same thing.

But true to the tee, I have shown that you will ignore those whose statements you do not want to believe, as predicted.

Raymond, have you watched Tony's video yet? Policemen, to me, make very credible witnesses. Especially when they bet their life on their written and spoken testimony. I know it's long, but because you seem interested in trying to debunk the Truth movement, the video might prove to be challenging to you. I'm interested to see how you might try to debunk, or ignore, the taped witnesses.

One thing is for sure: After watching the video, you'd be a fool to believe that the taxi was actually hit by Light Pole #1!

Not true. I believe what he said because I thought he was being truthful about what he saw.

And my impression after reading two pages about him are that he seems to be mentally that have made up the whole story after he saw loose change. Seriosly, he was passing by, had nothing to do with pentagon but got the important job of finding the evidence such that it could be destroyed

But true to the tee, I have shown that you will ignore those whose statements you do not want to believe, as predicted.

This is exactly the same as you and other people ignore opeds written by for example Tim Ball when the chief posts them. You should at least try to show an eyewitness with at least some credibility if you want to play that card.

This is exactly the same as you and other people ignore opeds written by for example Tim Ball when the chief posts them.

Ah, an excuse for having a preset opinion. Perfect.

After many posts showing the science behind AWG, and after every denier claim debunked, we're not just choosing to ignore OpEds, we have merit for choosing to ignore how a minority of scientists skew data to show that AWG does not exist. And The Chief, what a fine example you choose!

Like I said, there are others who saw something other than a 575 hit the Pentagon. You choose to ignore all of their testimony. Instead, you are happy to believe the tale that perfect strangers tell you. And it just so happens to be the one you want to hear.

Question: Do you know when you started believing that 9/11 was caused by terrorists from Al-Queda? Think back, what stranger planted that seed in your mind?

After many posts showing the science behind AWG, and after every denier claim debunked, we're not just choosing to ignore OpEds, we have merit for choosing to ignore how a minority of scientists skew data to show that AWG does not exist. And The Chief, what a fine example you choose!

It seems like you missed my point. My point was that there are good and bad skeptic arguments about AGW and there are good and bad arguments and information about 911 conspiracies. I am just not able to take your witness seriously after reading those two pages and I really cant understand how someone can. It is like one of the chiefs copy and paste post. For you to claim that you have proved that I am closed minded about the truth because I do not believe that witness is like the chief would claim that scientist is closed minded about the truth after one of his copy and paste post.

Like I said, there are others who saw something other than a 575 hit the Pentagon. You choose to ignore all of their testimony.

No, I am just not going to search for them.

Instead, you are happy to believe the tale that perfect strangers tell you. And it just so happens to be the one you want to hear.

Well, actually I look at and listen to all the information I can. I try to have an open mind to all witnesses and observers, as well as those that look into the details of what happened.

Many, many people have questions that go unanswered. And not just insignificant questions--questions of real merit. When people with these questions get stonewalled, my curiosity goes up.

For example, I see now that in 2006 they finally released a couple of videos, ones that show nothing. However, the many FOI requests asking for the videos that would show something go unanswered.

Why?

Karl points out that there could be many levels of disinformation circulating, and we don't know who is circulating what.

Here's something that just came into focus for me, the taxi cab at the Pentagon that was hit by one of the light posts knocked over by the "plane that hit the Pentagon".

I never really paid much attention, but if you believe that that this car was struck by a 400+ lb. light pole, after it was dislodged by a jet liner, then I see why you'd buy the 9/11 Commission Report:

Can you believe it, not a scratch in the hood (that's the reflection of the windshield you see in the polished hood). Lloyd even said that he drove a ways with the light pole sticking out of his windshield. Pretty hard to believe, no?

But there you go, if you believe the Official Story, then you must believe this too.

A minor but important aside here.
My apologies to The Chief and all here at ST for using a nickname my friends have been using for me for may years as my ST handle after The Chief was here first. It's generated confusion and made The Chief a target for complaints about my views or behaviour and given me credit I might not deserve for The Chief's contributions. It doesn't appear we can change our ST names once they're up or I'd happily just use my real name which by the way, is Perry.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, the original post here was not about 9/11 or the conspiracy theories surrounding the event but rather, our tolerance for and the nature of our reactions to statements we don't agree with, whether we choose to pose questions, offer opinions or pass judgements and ultimately, the way we talk to and about each other.
My original observation was a tongue in cheek effort at humour, and in retrospect, perhaps unnecessarily facetious. I will make all possible effort to be impeccable with my word and fess up when busted for failing.

And let's just say, there was some huge conspiracy plan and the "other" magical flying thing that hit the Pentagon really was a missle or something, and that the actual entire jet airliner and it's passengers were quietly killed and disposed of elsewhere..... somehow... like... errrrmmm.. magic...

Does it make sense to anyone that "they"(the nefarious gov't evil-doers) would do this on bright and clear sunny work morning where everyone and their mothers would clearly see these objects in the crystal-clear air?

If the jet airplane "missed" the Pentagon, did it turn invisible right as it neared the building? It must have if nobody else saw a jumbo jet flying just above the ground over DC at 300mph+ after skimming the Pentagon... Maybe it really landed in area 51?

Comon guys.. I've got a tinfoil hat too but this stuff just seems so insane. Maybe I need more foil.

Well, actually I look at and listen to all the information I can. I try to have an open mind to all witnesses and observers, as well as those that look into the details of what happened.

It doesn't look that to me. Have you read what your witness says and do you really believe that it make any sense? Do you really not see that the damage on the building seems to be consistent with an airplane crash?

I never really paid much attention, but if you believe that that this car was struck by a 400+ lb. light pole, after it was dislodged by a jet liner, then I see why you'd buy the 9/11 Commission Report:

What I really do not understand is why they should do such a botch job that includes an ordinary taxi driver when they supposedly rigged lamp posts. I neither know how the damage after a hit by 400+ lb lamp post is supposed to look like.

I actually looked at parts of the movie that Tony posted and the eyewitness reports seems strange but I neither cant understand why they should plan to destroy lamp posts and other things at a different trajectory than they flown the airplane that overflow pentagon. Wouldn't it be much more convincing if the airplane flow over the lamp posts that where destroyed?

... the original post here was not about 9/11 or the conspiracy theories surrounding the event but rather, our tolerance for and the nature of our reactions to statements we don't agree with.

...

My original observation was a tongue in cheek effort at humour,

Perry, I'm sorry your thread got abducted! You make us all look fools, we should all be laughing.

Also, sorry your avatar is so closely named to another's, especially when the other avatar is know for posting belligerent and hostile views.

We should take the 9/11 discuss back to one of the several already-exiting threads, and return your thread to its original purpose (edit: or not!)--our inability to tolerate others with opposing views.